Has the Church lied about what it claims to be?

[_wenglund]

One of the many issues raised by certain former members: Has the Church lied about what it claims to be? In other words, has it deceived people about what it claims to be? Has it acted in bad faith in what it claims to be?

I am willing to make one last attempt at having a reasoned discussion on this question. Let's see how it goes.

To answer this questions, there must first be established what it is that the Church claims to be. Correct?

Do you agree that, simply and generally stated, the Church claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints?

Do you agree that, more specifically, the Church claims to be the gospel of Christ restored in the latter days, the kingdom of God on earth, the "one true Church" headed by Christ through his chosen prophets and priestood leaders?

Generally speaking, what else do you see the Church as claiming to be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

One of the many issues raised by certain former members: Has the Church lied about what it claims to be? In other words, has it deceived people about what it claims to be? Has it acted in bad faith in what it claims to be?

I am willing to make one last attempt at having a reasoned discussion on this question. Let's see how it goes.

To answer this questions, there must first be established what it is that the Church claims to be. Correct?

Do you agree that, simply and generally stated, the Church claims to be the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints?

Do you agree that, more specifically, the Church claims to be the gospel of Christ restored in the latter days, the kingdom of God on earth, the "one true Church" headed by Christ through his chosen prophets and priestood leaders?

Generally speaking, what else do you see the Church as claiming to be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's pretty much what they claim to be. Yup.

[_Who Knows]

The church claims that Joseph Smith 'restored' God's one true church. This restoration was brought about by a literal visit from God and Jesus to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith claimed to have REAL/TANGIBLE ancient gold plates.

For me, this is the key. Did those 2 events happen? If they did, the church is what it claims. If they didn't, the church IS NOT what it claims.

Of course there's no way to prove 100% either way whether they did or did not happen. But we can each decide whether those events likely happened, or likely did not happen.

Personally, I think those events did not happen. Thus, the church is not what it claims.

p.s. - didn't i start a thread about this last week?

[_Runtu]

The church claims that Joseph Smith 'restored' God's one true church. This restoration was brought about by a literal visit from God and Jesus to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith claimed to have REAL/TANGIBLE ancient gold plates.

For me, this is the key. Did those 2 events happen? If they did, the church is what it claims. If they didn't, the church IS NOT what it claims.

Of course there's no way to prove 100% either way whether they did or did not happen. But we can each decide whether those events likely happened, or likely did not happen.

Personally, I think those events did not happen. Thus, the church is not what it claims.

p.s. - didn't i start a thread about this last week?

There's the rub. Because there is no proof either way, you can either choose to look at things as reasonable conclusions or cognitive distortions. We could easily say that Wade's belief in the church is the result of a cognitive distortion.

[_wenglund]

The church claims that Joseph Smith 'restored' God's one true church. This restoration was brought about by a literal visit from God and Jesus to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith claimed to have REAL/TANGIBLE ancient gold plates.

For me, this is the key. Did those 2 events happen? If they did, the church is what it claims. If they didn't, the church IS NOT what it claims.

Of course there's no way to prove 100% either way whether they did or did not happen. But we can each decide whether those events likely happened, or likely did not happen.

Personally, I think those events did not happen. Thus, the church is not what it claims.

p.s. - didn't i start a thread about this last week?

As long as you can agree that that is what the Church claims to be (whether you agree with the claim or not), then we can proceed to the next logical step--i.e. come to a mutual agreement of what constitutes lies, deception, and bad faith.

Do you agree with the dictionary definition that lies are: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

As long as you can agree that that is what the Church claims to be (whether you agree with the claim or not), then we can proceed to the next logical step--i.e. come to a mutual agreement of what constitutes lies, deception, and bad faith.

Do you agree with the dictionary definition that lies are: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure, but how does one determine whether the church's statements are true or false?

[_Who Knows]

As long as you can agree that that is what the Church claims to be (whether you agree with the claim or not), then we can proceed to the next logical step--i.e. come to a mutual agreement of what constitutes lies, deception, and bad faith.

Do you agree with the dictionary definition that lies are: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

edit - yes, i would agree that that is what the church claims to be, among multitudes of other claims.

[_wenglund]

Do you agree with the dictionary definition that lies are: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive"? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure, but how does one determine whether the church's statements are true or false?

That is an interesting question, and one you will need to reasonably answer when substantiating your accusation that the Church has lied, deceived, and acted in bad faith about what it claims to be.

It is the sister to what I believe is the more critical question of: "how does one determine whether the Church deliberately intended to deceive?" You will need to reasonably answer this question as well when substantiating your accusation.

Now, since we are in agreement as to the claim and the definition of "lies", then perhaps you can begin by presenting your evidence (preferrably one at a time so as to keep the discussion managable) in support of your accusation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Do you agree with the dictionary definition that lies are: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive"? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure, but how does one determine whether the church's statements are true or false?

That is an interesting question, and one you will need to reasonably answer when substantiating your accusation that the Church has lied, deceived, and acted in bad faith about what it claims to be.

It is the sister to what I believe is the more critical question of: "how does one determine whether the Church deliberately intended to deceive?" You will need to reasonably answer this question as well when substantiating your accusation.

Now, since we are in agreement as to the claim and the definition of "lies", then perhaps you can begin by presenting your evidence (preferrably one at a time so as to keep the discussion managable) in support of your accusation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good luck finding someone to play your game Wade.

The church makes the claims - they have to present evidence for them. If they can't, then too bad. The burden of proof is on the church.

Wade - I have an invisible dragon in my garage. Please provide evidence that I'm lying. When you do, I will provide what you are asking for.

[_Runtu]

Do you agree with the dictionary definition that lies are: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive"? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure, but how does one determine whether the church's statements are true or false?

That is an interesting question, and one you will need to reasonably answer when substantiating your accusation that the Church has lied, deceived, and acted in bad faith about what it claims to be.

It is the sister to what I believe is the more critical question of: "how does one determine whether the Church deliberately intended to deceive?" You will need to reasonably answer this question as well when substantiating your accusation.

Now, since we are in agreement as to the claim and the definition of "lies", then perhaps you can begin by presenting your evidence (preferrably one at a time so as to keep the discussion managable) in support of your accusation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But here's the problem, Wade. The church's claims are unprovable, so we have two competing interpretations:

Some people believe the church has told the truth, and that pleases them.
Others believe that the church has not told the truth, and that upsets them.

According to you, one of these groups suffers from cognitive distortions, and the other does not.

If I need to substantiate my belief that the church has deliberately intended to deceive, you must substantiate your belief that the church has deliberately intended to tell the truth.